Seit seiner Entstehung in den 1930er- Jahren hat sich das Fach "American Studies" in den USA radikal verändert. Als Motor dieses Prozesses galt bislang die wissenschaftliche Forschung. Matthias Oppermann beleuchtet nun erstmals die Rolle der Lehre und zeigt, dass das Fach von Beginn an durch Kurse und Lehrpläne nicht nur didaktisch, sondern auch theoretisch kontinuierlich neu konstituiert wurde. Mit dieser Neubewertung liefert er ein revidiertes Verständnis der "American Studies" als interdisziplinäre Kulturwissenschaft im Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Theorien, Methoden und Forschungsgegenstände.

Autorentext
Matthias Oppermann ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Lehrstuhl North American Literary and Cultural Studies der Universität Bielefeld.

Klappentext

Leseprobe
2.3 Radical Teaching Contra Cultural Consensus? As Mechling, Meredith, and Wilson (1973) have suggested, the effects of the rapid growth of American studies during the 1960s are by no means exclusively positive. American studies scholarship of the time seems marked by a sense of both maturation and crisis. As early as 1963, Hennig Cohen assessed that The American Studies movement has become just a little tired, careworn, and taken for granted. Once something of a siren, she is now somewhat fleshed out and matronly, and at moments capable of observing her household and progeny with a degree of self-satisfaction. But if she is no longer slim and starry-eyed, she has a better sense of discipline, balance, and of her own limitations, while retaining her original energy, curiosity, and purposefulness. (Cohen 1963, 550) The mid-1960s were generally considered something of a turning point in the academic status and development of the field. In her essay on "The Mid-life Crisis of American Studies," Doris Friedensohn remarked that "American Studies had Cinderella status" in the academy until the mid- to late 1960s (1972, 372). Gene Wise referred to the period that followed the mid-1960s as "the 'coming apart' stage of American Studies" (1979b, 312). What exactly was coming apart? And what led to this heightened sense of crisis? One likely answer to both questions entails a reference to the holistic and consensual notion of the culture concept that still operates in the mid-1960s. Despite its diversity and heterogeneity, a national culture-as it was understood by scholars like Hennig Cohen in the early 1960s (see above)-was based primarily on cultural consensus. In his article "Cultural History and American Studies: Past, Present, and Future" (1971), Robert Sklar described the 1960s as a time of increasing disillusionment with this idea of American cultural consensus: During the 1960s the premises of an optimistic and largely uncritical American cultural consensus were shattered. Where most Americans had once perceived a society of affluence and well-being, many now began to see poverty and mal-nutrition. Where most Americans had accepted their nation's military and economic role in the world as benevolent and necessary, many now began to regard it as destructive and imperialistic. Where it had been generally assumed that economic and material growth were the signs of a thriving society, many now sensed that growth meant pollution and ecological crisis. Where it had been expected that assimilation and an end to discrimination were rapidly being achieved, many began to find identity and pride in heightened racial and sexual consciousness, confrontation, and separation. Groups which had seemed only peripherally or covertly or inconsequently a part of American culture-blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, Indians, women, homosexuals-demanded to be recognized as part of the whole culture of the United States, as well as asserting their rights to create their own histories and determine their own cultural role. (Sklar 1971, 3-4) Sklar's account highlights some of the issues that led to a radical critique of the notion of cultural consensus. Diverse social movements and identity politics came to the fore in various public arenas. These changes had profound effects on research and curricula in American higher education. First, as minorities started to enter universities in larger numbers, many of the questions asked in political arenas were also rightfully asked about curricula in American studies, like "where are the blacks?" and "where are the women?" (Lauter 1999, 31). Second, the political turmoil of the 1960s put considerable strain on existing explanatory frameworks of earlier American studies. Depending on political perspective, the necessary changes to the field are today perceived as "salutary" by some, and unhealthy by others. James E. Hartley (on the more conservative side of the political spectrum) agrees that the 1960s were turning point for American studies: In 2004, in his version of the development of American studies, he remarked that From a program designed to read the great books of American civilization, the American Studies movement has become nothing more than an extension of the politicization of the university itself. This complete transformation occurred in the 1960s. As Robert Sklar, former vice president of the American Studies Association put it, "The vitality, ferment, and conflict of the 1960s have had a salutary effect on American Studies." (31) A salutary effect: America Studies was sick back in the old days and the events of the 1960s brought it to health. No longer would American Studies be mired in the illness of looking for what was common to the American experience. Rather, the discipline of American Studies would now undertake a healthy study of the failings of America, a healthy examination of ethnicity and gender. (Hartley 2004, 51; emphasis in original) As Hartley's rhetoric powerfully illustrates, the debates concerning benefits and drawbacks of the transformation of American studies in the mid- to late 1960s and early 1970s continue to be ideologically charged. Conservative and progressive critics agree, however, that American studies was in a deep crisis during that time. According to the aforementioned former vice president of the ASA Robert Sklar, this really should not surprise anyone, because "as an intellectual discipline American Studies has always been in crisis" (1970, 597). Nonetheless, he continues to note a year later, "[] the present crisis is more serious than all previous crises" (1971, 5). During this "more serious crisis," several factors contributed to a radical critique of the holistic concept of culture that had been associated with earlier versions of American studies. Central to this critique were a perceived methodological chaos, uncertainties with regard to the culture concept as the central paradigm of the field, and, most importantly, the notion that current social and cultural processes could not be adequately described through the categories of "traditional" American studies. Building on Günter Lenz, Alice Kessler-Harris suggests that By the late 1960s and early seventies, the lines that tied the holistic culture together began to fray. Perhaps a major reason, as Günter Lenz has noted, was the…